Sai submitted a FOIA/PA request to the Transportation Safety Administration concerning an incident involving Sai and TSA personnel that took place at Boston's Logan Airport. Sai subsequently submitted another FOIA request pertaining to an incident involving Sai at the San Francisco Airport. Sai submitted three more requests for various policy documents. The requests asked for expedited processing and that Sai be placed in the news media category for fee purposes. The agency indicated that video taken at the airports was protected under Exemption 3 (other statutes) as sensitive security information, and that the requests were too broad. Sai finally filed suit.Complaint issues: failure to respond, declare requests "reasonably described" records, grant of news media status and public interest fee waiver, arbitrary and capricious behavior, disclosure of all records, Privacy Act damages, attorney's fees, pattern and practice of improper withholding of records

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle has ruled that Sai is not entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring TSA to disclose records pertaining to his ADA and Rehabilitation Act complaints. Sai filed two FOIA requests to the agency pertaining to incidents he alleged occurred at the airports in Boston and San Francisco. After the agency failed to respond, Sai filed suit asking for a preliminary injunction requiring the agency to disclose the requested records. The agency argued Sai was requesting relief beyond the scope of his FOIA complaint, but Huvelle noted that "plaintiff does specifically identity his November 2013 FOIA/PA request in the complaint and further alleges TSA's non-compliance with statutory deadlines as to that request. Moreover, plaintiff seeks in his complaint broad relief�"including production of requested documents�"as to 'all' his FOIA/PA requests. Construed liberally�"as the court must�"plaintiff's complaint seeks a court order requiring TSA to produce documents requested in his November 2013 FOIA/PA request." However, finding that she had jurisdiction over the claim, Huvelle concluded Sai was not entitled to relief, noting that "he has failed to demonstrate any�"let alone 'very serious'�"irreparable harm that would befall him absent the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction." She observed that "to be sure, a movant's general interest in timely processing of FOIA requests may be sufficient to establish irreparable harm if the information sought is 'time-sensitive.' In this regard, plaintiff implores the Court to consider the 'larger context of news and public interest reporting on a nationwide, multi-year pattern and practice of TSA violations of individuals' rights at checkpoints.' While this argument gets closer to those FOIA cases in which courts have found irreparable harm, the Court concludes that plaintiff has not provided any evidence to demonstrate the time-sensitivity of and public concern over the 'specific subject' of the TSA's responses to plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act grievances." She pointed out that "plaintiff 'has failed to demonstrate any time sensitive need for [the requested] information that will be irreparably lost if disclosure does not occur immediately' and this case is allowed to proceed down the typical path of FOIA litigation."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Standing

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Randolph Moss has ruled that because various motions filed by pro se litigant Sai are premature, he is not entitled to compel TSA to disclose orders it may rely on to support its characterization of surveillance footage as sensitive security information, he is not entitled to attorney's fees, and he is not entitled to add 14 other FOIA requests to the current complaint. Noting that the case was nearly ready for consideration of the merits, Moss pointed out that Sai had peppered the court with motions, most of which were unnecessary. Moss indicated that Sai was apparently concerned that he would miss his deadline to appeal the agency's SSI order to the D.C. Circuit, which has original jurisdiction over TSA's orders. Acknowledging Sai's concerns, Moss noted that "but, as to the substance of [a motion to the D.C. Circuit], the Court remains convinced that resolution of any potential issues relating to SSI is premature. The Court does not yet know what information, if any, TSA will contend should be withheld and it does not know what dispute may exist with respect to the designation of any such SSI. . .It is important, however, to recall that this is a FOIA and Privacy Act case relating to specific requests for records. Before the Court can adjudicate this case, it needs to know what specific requests remain unanswered, what specific exemptions TSA invokes and the basis for its determinations, and why Plaintiff disputes those determinations." Although the agency had already disclosed some 3,000 pages, Moss explained that Sai's motion for attorney's fees was also premature. He noted that "it is too early to assess even whether [any] particular order will result in any 'relief' to Plaintiff, much less whether Plaintiff will substantially prevail in this case." Because Sai was proceeding pro se, he was not entitled to attorney's fees, only costs. Moss indicated that "in light of the Court's holding that Plaintiff has no and cannot, demonstrate 'eligibility' or 'entitlement' to fees and costs at this stage of the litigation, it need not consider whether he would be entitled�"if and when he does substantially prevail�"to costs and/or a nominal award of attorney's fees as he asserts." Moss rejected Sai's motion to add the additional FOIA requests, noting that "the addition of fourteen additional FOIA/Privacy Act requests to this case would merely result in undue delay in the disposition of this case and would not enhance judicial efficiency."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to Exhaust

FOIA Project Annotation: Addressing his complaints pertaining to the Transportation Security Administration's handling of his multiple requests concerning two incidents at Boston and San Francisco airports, Judge Randolph Moss has ruled that there remain unanswered questions concerning the agency's legal obligation to provide records in Sai's choice of format, as well as issues related to the adequacy of the agency's searches. Moss's decision provides more discussion of the choice of format provision than any court ruling so far, although he relied primarily on Scudder v. CIA, 25 F. Supp. 3d 19 (D.D.C. 2014), the only other case to discuss the provision in detail. Even though Moss concluded that the parties needed to supplement their arguments, he raised serious questions about whether or not an electronic records universe that depends heavily on scanned PDF files is sufficient to satisfy the choice of format provision. Sai submitted a total of six FOIA requests to TSA in 2013 for records concerning incidents at TSA checkpoints at Boston and San Francisco airports, as well as previous incidents at New York's LaGuardia and Chicago's O'Hare airports. He also submitted a request for all TSA policies and procedures that were not already posted in TSA's electronic reading room. The agency told Sai that request was too broad and invited him to narrow the request. When Sai did not respond, the agency administratively closed his request. However, about a year after Sai filed suit, the agency searched 15 offices for the types of documents that were discernible from the text of his closed request. As a result, the agency initially disclosed 1,416 pages with redactions and a further 1,623 pages a month later. Sai's fifth and sixth requests asked for records about the Boston and San Francisco incidents, including those that had been created since his prior requests. Sai, who has a disability, claimed that the agency had violated both FOIA and the Rehabilitation Act, although Moss quickly concluded that he had no cause of action under the Rehabilitation Act and dismissed that claim. Since Sai had requested records in electronic format, he claimed the agency had failed to provide them in discrete useful formats. He complained that the agency had used a "rasterized" PDF format �" scanning paper documents that irreversibly rendered text into an image format �" rather than a "fully digital text PDF." Sai had requested records in "native" format, such as Word documents or Excel spreadsheets. In its defense, the agency pointed out that it used FOIAXpress software for processing FOIA requests, which did not have the capability to process records in native formats. Moss noted that "at least on the present record, the Court is unconvinced that these justifications satisfy the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(B)." He explained that Congress added the choice of format provisions in the 1996 EFOIA Amendments specifically to overturn Dismukes v. Dept of Interior, 603 F. Supp. 760 (D.D.C. 1984), which held that the agency was not required to disclose a computer tape of the list of participants in the Bureau of Land Management monthly oil and gas lease lotteries because those records were available on microfiche instead. In essence, Dismukes held that the choice of format was determined by the agency, not the requester. Congress changed this by requiring agencies to disclose records in formats that are "readily" reproducible and to consider the "technical feasibility" of doing so, according substantial weight to the agency's determination of technical feasibility. Moss observed that "but 'technically feasible' is not 'synonymous' with 'readily reproducible' and the Court must also 'consider the burden on the defendant' in producing records in a format that, although 'technically feasible,' is not 'readily' achieved." Moss pointed out that Sai's requests were not so much for a new format as for an existing format. He explained that "Congress adopted the 'readily reproducible' requirement in response [to Dismukes], leaving little doubt that the 'readily reproducible' requirement applies both to records that require conversion to a new format and to records, like those at issue here, that are sought in their original format, notwithstanding the fact that the agency can more easily release the records in a different format." Due to the lack of any D.C. Circuit case law on choice of format, the Scudder court relied on a standard articulated by the Ninth Circuit in TPS, Inc. v. Dept of Defense, 330 F. 3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003), finding that whenever an agency converted documents to a certain format �" in response to a FOIA request, under a contract or during the ordinary course of business �" the agency was required to provide documents in that format to others absent a showing of an unnecessarily harsh burden. Based on that standard, Moss found TSA had not yet shown that the records Sai had requested in their original format could not be readily produced. He indicated that "there is no question that the TSA has the technical capacity to format the records in the manner requested; indeed, that is how the records were originally formatted and used by the agency." The agency argued that its FOIA software, as well as the need to review records for sensitive security information, made such a disclosure unduly burdensome. On the record before him, Moss rejected that claim. He pointed out that "the TSA's primary contention that the request was incompatible with the agency's then-existing FOIA processing software is in tension with the language and purpose of the E-FOIA amendments. The statute asks whether the record at issue 'is readily reproducible by the agency in' the requested format, and not whether reproducing the file in that format would complicate the agency's FOIA review process." He added that "because the TSA has yet to show that Sai's format request posed a 'significant interference or burden' beyond increased FOIA-processing costs, and because it has yet to show that administrative costs of that type constitute a legally sufficient basis for rejecting a format request, the TSA is not entitled to summary judgment with respect to the format of the records released in response to Sai's [requests]." Moss also agreed with Sai's contention that certain records were illegible. He pointed out that "FOIA requesters are entitled to a legible copy of responsive agency records." Moss upheld the adequacy of the agency's searches except as they applied to four offices, including the FOIA Office and the Office of Legislative Affairs. Moss noted that Sai had provided sufficient evidence that records responsive to his requests existed in those offices to require the agency to search them as well. Moss also found that the agency had not sufficiently explained the time frame of its searches as well as the failure of certain offices to use keywords in their searches. Moss agreed with the agency that Sai's request for unpublished policy and procedure documents was far too broad. Sai argued that once the agency decided to provide some responsive records to his policy and procedures request, it was obligated to respond fully. Moss noted that "if that nothing-or-all approach were to prevail, agencies would have a strong incentive to reject wildly overbroad FOIA requests, like Sai's Policies Request, and to refuse to make any effort to provide what they reasonably can. Nothing in FOIA or the governing law requires agencies, or the court adopt such a counterproductive approach." TSA withheld records under Exemption 3 (other statutes), citing the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which allows the agency to withhold sensitive security information. Moss had previously found that under the statute, challenges to the designation of sensitive security information had to be brought in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, not the district court. However, he did examine Sai's contention that while TSA had disclosed SSI in a case brought by the ACLU, it had withheld the same information from him. TSA argued that it had subsequently unredacted some SSI information in the ACLU litigation after it had responded to Sai. Moss indicated that the public disclosure doctrine "does not �" and could not reasonably �" apply to information that was confidential at the time the agency responded to the plaintiff's FOIA request and was only subsequently officially released." Sending the issue back for further briefing, Moss indicated that Sai would have the burden of showing information disclosed to the ACLU was now public. Upholding most of the agency's claims under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records), Moss found the agency had not sufficiently shown why names and contact information of agency employees that had dealt with Sai's disability complaints should be withheld. He also questioned whether the agency had shown that a handful of records claimed under Exemption 5 (privileges) qualified as deliberative.
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Choice of format, Exemption 3

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Randolph Moss has ruled that pro se litigant Sai may not amend his multi-count FOIA suit against the Transportation Security Administration to add new FOIA counts as well as counts under the Rehabilitation Act. Moss noted that "as the Court understands Sai's proposed amendment, Sai seeks to challenge the TSA's purported failure to maintain an electronic, FOIA-reading room containing among other things, all 'statements of policy and interpretation which have been adopted by the agency, and that have not been 'published in the Federal Register.'" Characterizing Sai's original complaint as "comprehensive," Moss pointed out that "it may be that Sai now regrets not bringing a challenge to the adequacy of TSA's electronic FOIA-reading room but regret and clarification are not the same thing." Rejecting Sai's attempt to "clarify" his complaint, Moss observed that "in the present context, granting leave to amend would cause undue delay and unfairly prejudice the defendant. This case has been pending for well over four years. . .Most recently, the Court issued a 70-page opinion addressing Sai's challenges to 'virtually every aspect of the TSA's multiple searched and productions' in response to six separate FOIA requests. That decision narrowed the case, but leaves roughly a dozen questions for further briefing and development. Rather than narrowing and focusing the litigation, however, Sai treats the Court's opinion as a jumping-off point. In Sai's view, the opinion identifies ways in which the complaint might be improved or invites the parties to develop new theories to replace those the Court has considered and rejected." Moss pointed out that "that approach to litigation offers no end and is unfair to the opposing party." He indicated that "granting Sai's motion for leave to amend would inevitably extend [the] schedule by many months, and perhaps longer. Adding entirely new claims to the already lengthy set of issues for resolution as this date would not serve the interests of justice."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim

MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis and Appointment of Attorney Ex Parte Under Seal by SAI. (md, ) "LEAVE TO FILE GRANTED". (Entered: 03/13/2014)

2014-03-13

3

MOTION for Acceptance of P.O. Box as Official Address by SAI. (md, ) (Entered: 03/13/2014)

2014-03-13

4

ORDERED that the motion 3 for leave to file the complaint using a post office box address be, and hereby is, GRANTED; ORDERED that by April 5, 2014 Sai provide the court with an update on his permanent address, unless his motion for a CM/ECF password is granted. Signed by Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts on 3/12/2014. (md, ) (Entered: 03/13/2014)

MOTION for CM/ECF User Name and Password by SAI. (md, ) (Entered: 03/13/2014)

2014-03-13

FIAT ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 2 plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/30/2014. (md, ) (Entered: 03/13/2014)

2014-03-13

LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- EX PARTE UNDER SEAL This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 2/18/2014. (md, ) (Entered: 03/13/2014)

2014-03-13

7

REQUEST to Clerk to File Summons by SAI. (md, ) (Entered: 03/19/2014)

2014-03-14

Set/Reset Deadlines: By 4/5/2014, SAI to provide court with update on his permanent address unless his motion for CM/ECF password is granted. (zmm, ) (Entered: 03/14/2014)

MINUTE ORDER granting 9 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(b), plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of right up until 21 days after the filing of a responsive pleading or motion. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on April 16, 2014. (AG) (Entered: 04/16/2014)

2014-04-17

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 8 plaintiff's Motion to Expedite pending proof that plaintiff has served defendant with a copy of the summons and complaint pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on April 17, 2014. (AG) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

REPLY to opposition to motion re 14 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint filed by TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 05/29/2014)

2014-06-09

17

ORDER granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendant's answer is due by July 10, 2014, unless plaintiff moves before July 1, 2014, for leave to amend or to supplement his complaint. See order for details. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on June 9, 2014. (AG) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

2014-06-09

MINUTE ORDER re April 16, 2014 Minute Order: For the reasons stated in the Order granting defendant's motion for extension of time to answer (ECF No. 17 ), it is hereby ORDERED that the sentence in the April 16, 2014 Minute Order that reads "Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of right up until 21 days after the filing of a responsive pleading or motion" is STRICKEN. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on June 9, 2014. (AG) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order , MOTION to Expedite per LCvR 65.1(d) by SAI (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Statement of facts as to which there is no genuine issue)(SAI, ) (Entered: 06/15/2014)

MINUTE ORDER granting plaintiff's 19 consent motion to amend/correct plaintiff's 18 motion for a preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, and to expedite, denying plaintiff's 18 initial motion as moot, and setting a briefing schedule. Plaintiff's consent motion to amend 19 is hereby GRANTED and plaintiff's initial motion 18 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. The Clerk is instructed to docket the attachment to plaintiff's 19 consent motion as a separate Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. It is further ORDERED that defendant's opposition to plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is due on June 25, 2014; plaintiff's reply is due July 2, 2014. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on June 16, 2014.(lcesh1) (Entered: 06/16/2014)

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice plaintiff's 23 Motion to Issue Summons. It is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's 23 emergency motion to issue a summons is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pending the Court's ruling on plaintiff's 21 motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg as Motions Judge on behalf of Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle on June 17, 2014. (lcesh1) (Entered: 06/17/2014)

ORDER denying 20 plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, denying 32 plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, and denying 33 plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Supplement to his Reply Brief, for the reasons stated in the accompanying 34 Memorandum Opinion. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on July 7, 2014. (lcesh1) (Entered: 07/07/2014)

MOTION for Reconsideration re 34 Memorandum & Opinion, 31 Reply to opposition to Motion, 35 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,, to reconsider motion for sanctions by SAI (SAI, ) (Entered: 07/10/2014)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 22 plaintiff's Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on July 18, 2014. (lcesh1) (Entered: 07/18/2014)

2014-07-22

43

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 26 defendant's motion for Protective Order and denying 30 plaintiff's cross-motion to compel. No discovery shall be conducted in this case until and unless ordered by the Court. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on July 22, 2014. (lcesh1) (Entered: 07/22/2014)

2014-07-22

44

ORDER denying 30 plaintiff's motion for sanctions. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on July 22, 2014. (lcesh1) (Entered: 07/22/2014)

2014-07-28

45

Memorandum in opposition to re 38 MOTION for Reconsideration re 34 Memorandum & Opinion, 31 Reply to opposition to Motion, 35 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,, to reconsider motion for sancti filed by TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 07/28/2014)

ORDER advising plaintiff to respond to defendant's 51 partial motion to dismiss by August 28, 2014 or Court may deem matter as conceded. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on August 13, 2014. (lcesh1) (Entered: 08/13/2014)

2014-08-13

55

ORDER denying plaintiff's 53 motions to compel defendant to file an answer and to strike defendant's motion to strike. Defendant's obligation to file an answer is tolled pending the Court's consideration of its 51 motions to strike and partially dismiss plaintiff's complaint; plaintiff may not file further motions without the Court's leave or direction until the Court resolves defendant's pending 51 motions. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on August 13, 2014. (lcesh1) (Entered: 08/13/2014)

ORDER granting plaintiff's 57 Motion for Extension of Time and 57 Motion for Clarification. Plaintiff shall respond to defendant's 51 motion to dismiss no later than September 11, 2014, and shall reply to defendant's 56 opposition to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration no later than September 15, 2014. Under the Court's 55 August 13, 2014 Order, plaintiff may file motions for extensions of time, as well as responses and replies to pending motions, without leave of the Court, but may not file a cross-motion for summary judgment or additional motions for clarification without leave of the Court until the Court resolves defendant's pending 51 motions. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on August 26, 2014. (lcesh1) (Entered: 08/26/2014)

2014-08-27

Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to motion to dismiss due by 9/11/2014. Reply due by 9/15/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 08/27/2014)

2014-09-10

59

Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 51 MOTION to Strike 5 Complaint and to Dismiss in Part , 50 MOTION for Reconsideration re 49 Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint MOTION to Clarify Order 49 for 14 days extension - UNOPPOSED by SAI (SAI, ) (Entered: 09/10/2014)

2014-09-11

MINUTE ORDER granting plaintiff's unopposed 59 Motion for extension of time to file response/reply. For good cause shown, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's 59 Motion for an extension of time is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall respond to defendant's 51 motion to dismiss no later than September 25, 2014, and plaintiff shall reply to defendant's 56 opposition to plaintiff's 50 motion for reconsideration no later than September 29, 2014. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on September 11, 2014. (lcesh1) (Entered: 09/11/2014)

2014-09-12

Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion to Dismiss due by 9/25/2014. Reply to Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration due by 9/29/2014. (sm) (Entered: 09/12/2014)

2014-09-12

60

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 51 MOTION to Strike 5 Complaint and to Dismiss in Part , 50 MOTION for Reconsideration re 49 Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint MOTION to Clarify Order 49 until pending responses are released , MOTION for Leave to File divided response and motions for partial summary judgment, to compel response, and to amend complaint by SAI (SAI, ) (Entered: 09/12/2014)

2014-09-18

61

ORDER denying plaintiff's 60 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and denying plaintiff's 60 Motion for Leave to File a Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Compel. The parties should proceed briefing the pending motions according to the schedule set forth in the Courts September 11, 2014 Minute Order. (See Order for details.) Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on September 18, 2014. (lcesh1) (Entered: 09/18/2014)

2014-09-25

62

Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 51 MOTION to Strike 5 Complaint and to Dismiss in Part , 50 MOTION for Reconsideration re 49 Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint MOTION to Clarify Order 49 for 7 days by SAI (SAI, ) (Entered: 09/25/2014)

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 51 MOTION to Strike 5 Complaint and to Dismiss in Part , 50 MOTION for Reconsideration re 49 Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint MOTION to Clarify Order 49 until October 17 by SAI (SAI, ) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

2014-09-30

MINUTE ORDER granting 64 plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and, accordingly, finding as moot 62 plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff's response and reply are due by October 17, 2014. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on September 30, 2014. (AG) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

2014-09-30

Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to TSA's motion to dismiss and strike due by 10/17/2014. Reply to TSA's opposition to motion for reconsideration due by 10/17/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

2014-09-30

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 50 MOTION for Reconsideration re 49 Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint MOTION to Clarify Order 49 , 51 MOTION to Strike 5 Complaint and to Dismiss in Part . Responses due by 10/17/2014 Replies due by 10/17/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Complaint and Dismiss in Part by TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

2014-10-24

MINUTE ORDER granting 68 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time: Upon consideration of Defendant's Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Complaint and Dismiss in Part, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall have to, and including, November 12, 2014, to file its reply in support of its Motion to Strike Complaint and Dismiss in Part. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on October 24, 2014. (AG) (Entered: 10/24/2014)

2014-10-27

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 51 MOTION to Strike 5 Complaint and to Dismiss in Part . Reply due by 11/12/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 10/27/2014)

MINUTE ORDER: As discussed on the teleconference held on June 9, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED that on or before July 31, 2015, the parties shall file a joint status report setting forth Defendants' expected timetable for providing additional material in response to the FOIA requests at issue in this litigation and identifying the subjects of any anticipated areas of remaining dispute. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/10/2015. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 06/10/2015)

2015-06-11

Set/Reset Deadline: On or before 7/31/2015, the parties shall file a joint status report setting forth Defendants' expected timetable for providing additional material in response to the FOIA requests at issue in this litigation and identifying the subjects of any anticipated areas of remaining dispute. (kt) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

NOTICE of Appearance by William Mark Nebeker on behalf of All Defendants (Nebeker, William) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

2015-08-31

80

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 5 Complaint, 48 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion to Expedite, Order on Motion for Discovery, 77 Proposed MOTION to Compel service of 49 USC § 46105(b) orders and findings of fact Proposed MOTION for Declaratory Judgment re. § 46110(a) deadline , 47 Order on Motion for Reconsideration , MOTION for Extension of Time to File , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 77 Proposed MOTION to Compel service of 49 USC § 46105(b) orders and findings of fact Proposed MOTION for Declaratory Judgment re. § 46110(a) deadline , 78 MOTION for Leave to File lodged motion 77 to compel service of 49 USC § 46105(b) orders and findings of fact, and for declaratory relief re. § 46110(a) deadline by TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nebeker, William) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

2015-09-02

81

RESPONSE re 80 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 5 Complaint, 48 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion to Expedite, Order on Motion for Discovery, 77 Proposed MOTION to Compel service of 49 USC § 46105(b) orders and findings of MOTION for Extension of Time to File MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 77 Proposed MOTION to Compel service of 49 USC § 46105(b) orders and findings of fact Proposed MOTION for Declaratory Judgment re. § 46110(a) deadline , 78 MO - partial consent and partial opposition filed by SAI. (SAI, ) (Entered: 09/02/2015)

2015-09-03

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendant's motion for an extension of time 80 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The parties shall file the joint status report as set forth in the Court's June 10, 2015 Minute Order on or before September 22, 2015. Defendant shall respond to the Complaint on or before September 23, 2015. Defendant shall file any response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File 77 and the Motion to Compel Service of 49 USC 46105(b) Orders 78 on or before October 2, 2015. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/3/2015. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 09/03/2015)

2015-09-03

Set/Reset Deadlines: The parties shall file the joint status report on or before 9/22/2015; Defendant shall respond to the Complaint on or before 9/23/2015; Defendant shall file any response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File 77 and the Motion to Compel Service of 49 USC 46105(b) Orders 78 on or before 10/2/2015. (kt) (Entered: 09/03/2015)

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 77 Proposed MOTION to Compel service of 49 USC § 46105(b) orders and findings of fact Proposed MOTION for Declaratory Judgment re. § 46110(a) deadline , 78 MOTION for Leave to File lodged motion 77 to compel service of 49 USC § 46105(b) orders and findings of fact, and for declaratory relief re. § 46110(a) deadline until Friday, October 23 by SAI (SAI, ) (Entered: 10/19/2015)

2015-10-22

89

NOTICE of conferral that Defendants take no position by SAI re 88 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 77 Proposed MOTION to Compel service of 49 USC § 46105(b) orders and findings of fact Proposed MOTION for Declaratory Judgment re. § 46110(a) deadline , 78 MO (SAI, ) (Entered: 10/22/2015)

Memorandum in opposition to re 85 MOTION for Attorney Fees of $0 as matter of law MOTION for Leave to File this motion MOTION award of fees and costs and declaration of prevailing party status filed by TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nebeker, William) (Entered: 10/26/2015)

MINUTE ORDER: The parties shall appear for a joint status conference in this matter and in Civil Action No. 14-1876 on January 7, 2016, at 10 a.m., in Courtroom 21. Any party who wishes to appear telephonically shall contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk to arrange for telephonic participation. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/21/2015. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 12/21/2015)

2015-12-21

Set/Reset Hearing: A Status Conference is set for 1/7/2016, at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) (Entered: 12/21/2015)

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File 78 , and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time 88 are GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Service 77 , Motion for Attorney Fees 85 , and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Pleading 86 are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff must seek and obtain leave of the Court prior to filing any motion other than a motion for an extension of time or a motion for summary judgment pursuant to the schedule to be entered by the Court in a separate, future order. As in Sai v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 99 F. Supp. 3d 50, 6869 (D.D.C. 2015), leave to file shall be sought by raising the issue by telephonic status conference with the Court. To schedule such a conference, Plaintiff shall confer with counsel for the government regarding available dates and times and may then contact the courtroom deputy clerk at (202) 354-3084 to request a status conference. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/6/2016. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 01/06/2016)

2016-01-07

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Status Conference held on 1/7/2016; Order forthcoming. A further Status Conference is set for 3/11/2016, at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook). (kt) (Entered: 01/07/2016)

2016-01-07

MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report on or before March 4, 2016. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a status conference on March 11, 2016, at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 21. Any party who wishes to appear telephonically shall contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk to arrange for telephonic participation. During the status conference held today, January 7, 2016, Plaintiff Sai made an oral motion to reconsider the Court's March 13, 2014 fiat order denying without prejudice his Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and for Appointment of Counsel. The oral motion was based on the reasons stated in Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and to Appoint Counsel in Case No. 14-1876 (Dkts. 65 & 66). The Court orally denied the motion for the same reasons as stated in that case. See No. 14-1876, Dkt. 88. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/7/2016. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 01/07/2016)

2016-01-08

MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff is directed not to contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk or chambers via e-mail. To arrange for a status conference or to schedule a time to seek the Court's leave to file a motion, the parties shall follow the procedure outlined in the Court's April 16, 2015 Memorandum and Order in Case No. 14-1876 (Dkt. 56 ), and if necessary may jointly contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk via telephone to schedule a time to confer with the Court regarding the relevant dispute. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/8/2016. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 01/08/2016)

2016-01-08

94

NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, Order,,, Leave to File Denied by SAI. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (SAI, ) (Entered: 01/08/2016)

2016-01-11

95

Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Fee remains to be paid and another notice will be transmitted when the fee has been paid in the District Court re 94 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (znmw) (Entered: 01/11/2016)

2016-01-11

MINUTE ORDER: The status conference previously scheduled for March 11, 2016, at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 21 is hereby VACATED. The parties shall appear for a status conference on March 11, 2016, at 2 p.m. in Courtroom 21. Any party who wishes to appear telephonically shall contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk to arrange for telephonic participation. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/11/2016. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 01/11/2016)

2016-01-11

Set/Reset Hearing: The Status Conference previously set for 3/11/2016, at 10:00 AM, is VACATED and RESCHEDULED for 3/11/2016, at 2:00 PM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) (Entered: 01/11/2016)

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the Joint Status Report 98 , it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment on or before June 9, 2016. Plaintiff shall file its opposition and any cross motion on or before August 8, 2016. Defendant shall file its reply, if any, and its opposition to any cross motion on or before September 7, 2016. Plaintiff shall file its reply, if any, on or before October 7, 2016. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/7/2016. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 03/07/2016)

2016-03-07

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment on or before 6/9/2016; Plaintiff shall file its opposition and any cross motion on or before 8/8/2016; Defendant shall file its reply, if any, and its opposition to any cross motion on or before 9/7/2016; Plaintiff shall file its reply, if any, on or before 10/7/2016. (kt) (Entered: 03/07/2016)

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 99 MOTION for Summary Judgment and cross-motion, of 45 days , Consent MOTION for Briefing Schedule extending all deadlines by 45 days by SAI (SAI, ) (Entered: 07/18/2016)

2016-07-18

101

ORDER granting 100 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Sai shall file his opposition/cross-motion to TSA's motion for summary judgment on or before September 22, 2016. TSA shall file its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment, as well as any opposition to a cross-motion, on or before October 10, 2016. Plaintiff's reply in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed on or before November 23, 2016. Plaintiff Sai, who is proceeding pro se, is further advised that failure to respond to TSA's motion may result in the Court granting the motion and dismissing the case or entering judgment in favor of the defendant. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 7/18/2016. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 07/18/2016)

2016-07-18

Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff Sai shall file his opposition/cross-motion to TSA's motion for summary judgment on or before 9/22/2016; TSA shall file its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment, as well as any opposition to a cross-motion, on or before 10/10/2016; Plaintiff's reply in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed on or before 11/23/2016. (kt) (Entered: 07/18/2016)

MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the deadline for Plaintiff to file his opposition/cross-motion to TSA's motion for summary judgment is hereby extended to November 4, 2016. Defendant shall file its reply, as well as any opposition to a cross-motion,on or before November 22, 2016. Plaintiff's reply in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed on or before January 5, 2017. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 8/25/2016. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 08/25/2016)

2016-08-26

Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff to file his opposition/cross-motion to TSA's motion for summary judgment is hereby extended to 11/4/2016; Defendant shall file its reply, as well as any opposition to a cross-motion, on or before 11/22/2016; Plaintiff's reply in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed on or before 1/5/2017. (kt) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the Consent Motion to Modify 103 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file its opposition/cross-motion to TSA's motion for summary judgment on or before November 4, 2016. Defendant shall file its reply, as well as any opposition to a cross-motion, on or before December 6, 2016. Plaintiff's reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed on or before January 5, 2017. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 8/26/2016. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

2016-08-26

Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff shall file its opposition/cross-motion to TSA's motion for summary judgment on or before 11/4/2016;. Defendant shall file its reply, as well as any opposition to a cross-motion, on or before 12/6/2016; Plaintiff's reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed on or before 1/5/2017. (kt) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendants Consent Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment 104 , it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants motion is GRANTED. The attached supplemental brief is hereby deemed filed. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/12/2016. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

Consent MOTION for Leave to File a Second Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Second Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 10/20/2016)

2016-10-20

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendant's Consent Motion for Leave to File a Second Supplemental Brief 106 , the motion is hereby GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the second supplemental brief with supporting declaration attached as an exhibit to defendant's motion for leave is deemed filed as of October 20, 2016. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/20/2016. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 10/20/2016)

NOTICE of Filing of Declaration in Support of Defendant's Second Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment by TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION re 107 Supplemental Memorandum (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Regina McCoy)(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 10/20/2016)

2016-10-28

109

Consent MOTION for Briefing Schedule amended per motion , Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File all pending briefing by 30 days by SAI (SAI, ) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

2016-10-30

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the Consent Motion for Extension and Revised Briefing Schedule 109 , the motion is hereby GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Sai shall file his opposition/cross-motion to TSA's motion for summary judgment on or before December 5, 2016. TSA shall file its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment, as well as any opposition to a cross-motion, on or before January 6, 2017. Plaintiff's reply in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed on or before February 6, 2017. The Court cautions the parties that, barring any extraordinary circumstances, no further extensions will be granted. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/30/2016. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 10/30/2016)

2016-10-31

Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff Sai shall file his opposition/cross-motion to TSA's motion for summary judgment on or before 12/5/2016; TSA shall file its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment, as well as any opposition to a cross-motion, on or before 1/6/2017; Plaintiff's reply in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed on or before 2/6/2017. (kt) (Entered: 10/31/2016)

2016-12-05

110

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 99 MOTION for Summary Judgment and cross-motion by SAI (SAI, ) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

2016-12-05

MINUTE ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a status conference on December 7, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in order to discuss the scheduling issues raised in Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Extension of Time 110 . Should either party wish to appear telephonically, that party shall contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk at (202) 354-3084 to make the necessary arrangements. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/5/2016. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

2016-12-06

Set/Reset Hearings: A Status Conference is set for 12/7/2016, at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) (Entered: 12/06/2016)

2016-12-07

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Status Conference held on 12/7/2016. Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time, as to filing an Opposition to the 99 Motion for Summary Judgment, to 1/30/2017; Defendant shall file their reply 30 days thereafter. No further extensions by Plaintiff will be granted. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook). (kt) (Entered: 12/07/2016)

2016-12-07

MINUTE ORDER: In light of Plaintiff's long delay in responding to Defendant's motion for summary judgment 99 and in order to avoid further delay in resolving that long-pending motion, the Court directs that Plaintiff postpone the filing of a cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, until after the Court has resolved Defendant's motion for summary judgment. If the Court concludes that Defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied in whole or in part, it will then set a separate briefing schedule that will permit Plaintiff to file his own motion for summary judgment. Filing a cross-motion for summary judgment at this time, however, will extend the current briefing schedule even further and will unfairly delay completion of briefing on a motion that Defendant filed six months ago and that, to date, has gone unanswered. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/7/2016. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 12/07/2016)

2017-01-12

NOTICE of Hearing: A Telephone Conference is set for 1/12/2017, at 3:00 PM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) Modified on 1/12/2017 to correct date (kt). (Entered: 01/12/2017)

2017-01-12

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Telephone Conference held on 1/12/2017. Plaintiff renewed his motions for in forma pauperis (IFP) status and appointment of counsel. It is the ORDER of the Court, that once the Plaintiff files his opposition brief as to the motion that has been pending, the Court will then grant Plaintiff leave to file a renewed motion for IFP status, along with a supporting motion for leave to file a declaration under seal. Plaintiff's renewed motion for appointment of counsel is hereby held in abeyance pending his IFP status and the Court's ruling on summary judgment. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook). (kt) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

MINUTE ORDER: A Telephone Conference is set for February 24, 2017, at 10:30 a.m., in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. If either party cannot be available for the hearing, that party should coordinate with the opposing party and jointly contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk to schedule an alternative date and/or time for the conference. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 2/22/2017. (lcrdm1, ) Modified on 2/23/2017 to change "Notice of Hearing" to "Minute Order" (kt). (Entered: 02/22/2017)

2017-02-23

Set/Reset Hearings: A Telephone Conference is set for 2/24/2017, at 10:30 AM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

MINUTE ORDER: At the hearing to consider Sai's request to submit additional affidavits and exhibits to his late-filed opposition to the TSA's motion for summary judgment, the Court permitted Sai to file 20 sample documents that were produced to the ACLU but not to him or that were produced with different redactions. The Court explicitly instructed that it "d[id] not want any legal argument," and it limited Sai's supplemental filing to "20 samples" and a declaration identifying the documents. Within two hours of the conclusion of the hearing, Sai submitted the 20 permitted sample documents, a "supplemental affidavit" [116-1], and, in direct contravention of the Court's instructions, a "supplemental brief in opposition to MSJ," 116 . Moreover, Sai's supplemental affidavit includes multiple paragraphs of argument. Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES Sai's "supplemental brief" 116 and paragraphs 8 through 20 of his "supplemental affidavit" [116-1] for failure to comply with the Court's directives. Sai is admonished that future violations of the Court's orders may result in the imposition of sanctions. The TSA's time to reply to Sai's opposition to the TSA's motion for summary judgment, as supplemented by the 20 sample documents, is hereby extended until March 9, 2017. After reviewing that brief, the Court will determine whether any additional briefing addressing the 20 sample documents, or any additional evidentiary submission, is appropriate. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 2/24/2017. (lcrdm1, ) Modified on 2/24/2017 for punctuation typo (kt). (Entered: 02/24/2017)

2017-02-27

Set/Reset Deadlines: The TSA's time to reply to Sai's opposition to the TSA's motion for summary judgment is extended until 3/9/2017. (kt) (Entered: 02/27/2017)

2017-03-07

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Out of Time 112 and Consent Motion for Leave to File Out of Time (Amended) 113 , the motions are hereby GRANTED and Dkt. 111 is deemed FILED. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/7/2017. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

MINUTE ORDER: In accordance with its Minute Order of February 24, 2017, the Court hereby permits Sai to file a brief addressing the ACLU documents he filed on February 24, 2017 (Dkt. 116 ) and responding to TSA's arguments regarding those documents (Dkt. 118 at 29-33). Sai's brief shall not exceed five pages and shall be filed on or before April 28, 2017. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/14/2017. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 04/14/2017)

NOTICE of Hearing: A Telephone Conference is set for 4/25/2017, at 1:15 PM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

2017-04-17

119

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File re April 14 minute order by SAI (SAI, ) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

2017-04-18

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the Unopposed Motion for Extension 119 , the motion is hereby GRANTED. Sai may file the brief referenced in the Court's Minute Order of April 14, 2017, on or before May 5, 2017. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/18/2017. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Telephone Conference held on 1/30/2018. Oral motion by Plaintiff, to supplement the record with further documentation; HEARD, GRANTED, and limited to the documents discussed on the record. The Court will determine the relevance of the documents, and Plaintiff is reminded that no additional briefing is permitted, at this time. Plaintiff is permitted to file a one-page affidavit or declaration, that addresses the one issue of the telephone conference he participated in with the head of the TSA FOIA office. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook.) (kt) (Entered: 01/30/2018)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Telephone Conference held on 3/13/2018. Plaintiff is permitted to produce a copy of the IG report to the Court, as well as the document related to the software. Plaintiff is further permitted to file an affidavit that is related to the IG report, which states the documents identified in the IG report, that are not listed in the Vaughn Index. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook.) (kt) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff provide a readable copy of the spreadsheet filed at Dkt. 111-3 at 2 to both the Court and counsel for the Defendant or before April 23, 2018. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/19/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 04/19/2018)

2018-04-20

Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff to provide a readable copy of the spreadsheet filed at Dkt. 111-3 at 2 to both the Court and counsel for the Defendant by 4/23/2018. (kt) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff electronically file a complete set of Defendant's productions in response to his FOIA requests on or before May 3, 2018. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/1/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

2018-05-02

125

MOTION for Extension of Time to File FOIA/PA records per May 1 minute order (partially consent) , MOTION for Hearing re Order (opposed) by SAI (SAI, ) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

2018-05-02

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and Request for a Hearing 125 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff electronically file a complete set of Defendant's productions in response to his FOIA requests, with the exception of video footage, on or before May 10, 2018. Plaintiff may redact personal information from the records, but shall clearly indicate that any such redaction was made by Plaintiff after receipt of the relevant records from Defendant. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's requests for a status conference, for a joint submission verifying the completeness of Plaintiff's filing, and for an extension to file one week after any such conference are DENIED. If, after reviewing Plaintiff's submission, Defendant concludes that it is incomplete, Defendant may file any omitted records. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/2/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

2018-05-03

Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff to electronically file a complete set of Defendant's productions in response to his FOIA requests, with the exception of video footage, on or before 5/10/2018. (kt) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

2018-05-10

126

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File FOIA/PA records per May 1 minute order (2 day) by SAI (SAI, ) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Extension of Time 126 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall electronically file a complete set of Defendant's productions in response to his FOIA requests, with the exception of video footage, on or before May 12, 2018. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/11/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

2018-05-11

Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff shall electronically file a complete set of Defendant's productions in response to his FOIA requests, with the exception of video footage, on or before 5/12/2018. (kt) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File FOIA/PA records per May 1 minute order (until Friday May 18) by SAI (SAI, ) (Entered: 05/12/2018)

2018-05-14

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the Consent Motion for Extension of Time, 147 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall electronically file documents Bates stamped numbers 141 through 408 on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, on May 16, 2018. Plaintiff shall electronically file all remaining documents in Defendant's productions in response to his FOIA requests, with the exception of video footage, on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, on May 18, 2018. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/14/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 05/14/2018)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, 99 , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/24/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 05/24/2018)

MINUTE ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a scheduling conference on May 30, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 21. Should either party wish to appear telephonically, that party shall contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk at (202) 354-3084 to make the necessary arrangements. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/25/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Notice of Unavailability 164 , it is hereby ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference currently scheduled for May 30, 2018, is hereby VACATED and RESCHEDULED for June 1, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 21. Plaintiff's request to appear by video is DENIED. Should Plaintiff wish to appear telephonically, Plaintiff is directed to contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk at (202) 354-3084 to make the necessary arrangements. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/29/2018. (lcrdm1, ) Modified on 5/29/2018 to change "status conference" to "scheduling conference" (kt). (Entered: 05/29/2018)

2018-05-29

Set/Reset Hearings: The Scheduling Conference set for 5/30/2018 is VACATED and RESCHEDULED for 6/1/2018, at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

2018-06-01

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Scheduling Conference held on 6/1/2018. Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment due by 9/28/2018; Plaintiff's opposition and cross motion, if any, due by 11/16/2018; Defendant's reply and cross opposition, if any, due by 12/14/2018; Plaintiff's final reply, if any, due by 1/31/2019. Plaintiff's list of page numbers due by 6/15/2018. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook.) (kt) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's oral motion to clarify or amend the operative complaint. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 7/11/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 07/11/2018)

2018-09-20

MINUTE ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a status conference on October 2, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 21. Should either party wish to appear telephonically, that party shall contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk at (202) 354-3084 to make the necessary arrangements. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/20/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the Consent Motion to Reschedule Status Conference 171 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The status conference currently scheduled for October 2, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., is hereby VACATED and RESCHEDULED for October 2, 2018, at 11:30 a.m., in Courtroom 21. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/25/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, 99 , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/25/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

FOX/NEAL ORDER: Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 174 , on or before November 16, 2018. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/01/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Status Conference held on 10/2/2018. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file/re-file, under seal, an IFP application/motion; IF the Court grants Plaintiff IFP status, then Plaintiff will be granted leave to file any motion for appointment of counsel, under seal and ex parte. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook.) (kt) Modified on 10/3/2018 to reflect what was stated on the record (kt). (Entered: 10/02/2018)

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's sealed application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 176 , it is hereby ORDERED that this motion is GRANTED on a prospective basis. In addition, Plaintiff is now GRANTED leave to file a motion, under seal and ex parte, for appointment of counsel. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/17/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 10/17/2018)

MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff has filed an "[a]ddendum re sealed renewed motion for IFP status," Dkt. 177 . The Court interprets this "addendum" as a motion for reconsideration seeking additional relief not sought in Plaintiff's sealed motion for in forma pauperis status, Dkt. 176 . It is hereby ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/18/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 10/18/2018)

2018-10-24

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, filed ex parte and under seal 178 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall identify a member of the Civil Pro Bono Panel to represent Plaintiff in this matter. D.D.C. L.R. 83.11(b)(4). Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/24/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 10/24/2018)

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion, Dkt. 179 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's request to stay the case for 57 days, and is otherwise DENIED. It is hereby ORDERED that the case shall be stayed until December 22, 2018, or until further order of this Court, to permit appointed counsel to appear. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/26/2018. (lcrdm1, ) (Entered: 10/26/2018)